Introduction by Sir Dudley SMITH, MP, President of the WEU Assembly to a discussion on "The WEU and the European Common Foreign and Security Policy" Tuesday 5th October 1993 Institut Royal Superieur de Defense, Brussels It is a particular pleasure for me to come and speak here this evening for I have been aware for some time now of the various initiatives taken by the Institute to inspire thought-provoking debate on issues of current importance. In addition, your present Commandant, General Luc Stainier, played a particularly active role on WEU during the last Belgian Presidency of our organisation in 1988-89. Much has changed since even that heady time which saw the beginning of the end of the Cold War. Security has become the name of the game rather than defence per se. The non-military aspects of security are much more important now than then. The so-called "new world order" is emerging like a chrysalis shedding its skin - but we are still uncertain just what will emerge. What is certain however is the need now for us to rely on each other to a much greater extent: more "interdependence" than "independance". Such interdependence is surely to be welcomed if it results in greater co-operation and more cost-effective solutions to common problems. However it also entails some loss of national sovereignty - anathema to many, a necessary evil for others. I would submit that the Western European Union is providing part of the answer to the present dilemma and that the foundations for such action were laid when the modified Brussels Treaty was signed nearly 40 years ago. The Petersberg Declaration of 19th June 1992 added a new dimension, reinforcing the agreement signed by the Twelve at Maastricht and giving WEU a double vocation. WEU's role was defined as the defence component of the future European Union and as the means for strengthening the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance. At the same time, it was decided to revive WEU's operational role and that has proceeded apace, as many of you know, with our small Planning Cell working on a specific set of possible missions: humanitarian, peace-keeping and peace-making. The Planning Cell celebrated its first anniversary last Friday, having been set up here in the Dreve Ste. Anne on 1st October last year. It is responsible for elaborating types of missions and for drawing up the force requirements necessary for implementation based on the assets individual member countries are prepared to make available to the WEU. The Satellite Centre in Torrejon near Madrid is up and running and well on the way to implementing a training scheme for imagery analysts. The parallel study on the feasibility of WEU launching its own observation satellite system is nearing fruition. WEU is in the process of giving a new impetus to co-operation for armament procurement and the Western European Armaments Group (WEAG) has been formed by absorbing the Independent European Programme Group and parts of the Eurogroup. The WEU Institute for Security Studies goes from strength to strength in various efforts to stimulate the debate on European security issues, especially through development of a dialogue with the Central European countries which are members of the WEU Forum for Consultation. These developments in WEU have taken place against a background of hiatus in the process of European integration. The hazards of economic recession and the virtual collapse of the European Monetary System together with the lukewarm commitments to Maastricht expressed in the Danish and French referendums and delays over British and German ratification have led to a considerable slowing down of the process. Above all the impossibility for the international community to bring about a satisfactory end to the Yugoslav conflict has led to perceptions of European "failure" in spite of many initiatives and a "European foreign policy" which has been remarkably consistent. The credibility of the Political Union has therefore been considerably damaged. Fortunately for WEU, which is described as "an integral part of the development of the Union", the essentials are not called into question. In the period since the Maastricht Treaty was signed there has been a striking contrast between the activity of WEU, which has implemented most of the decisions contained in the Declaration annexed to the Treaty on European Union, and the perceived paralysis of the process of integrating Europe. Towards the beginning of my introduction this evening I made mention of the thorny problem of sovereignty. Some would argue that sovereignty is indivisible but I believe that, as a result of concessions made here and there with the general aim of creating the single market, our power as individual nations has been eroded, to an extent, as we have transferred decision-making in certain areas to Brussels. Given the obvious reluctance of the vast majority of our populations to accept too rapid a change even in areas which many governments considered as totally innocuous, I believe that we are still some way from fully implementing a common European foreign and security policy, let alone the "eventual framing" of a common European defence policy with all that that implies. I know that Hans van den Broek gave you his perspective on such issues when he spoke here ten days ago. For these reasons I believe that security and defence issues must continue to be dealt with primarily on the government to government basis which characterises the work of the WEU. Similarly, the link between the WEU Assembly and national parliaments is as vital for the future as it has been in the past, although I would not totally exclude the idea of a European Senate, made up of national Parliamentarians, both as a means to bring a national parliamentary component and our own WEU Assembly closer to a European parliametary system and as the way to maintain democratic oversight of security and defence issues. Once again WEU would be acting as the bridge envisaged at Maastricht and in the Petersberg Declaration. The Community is now steering a course towards enlargement with Austria, Finland and Sweden on the threshold of joining. While I believe it is essential that all three countries should join us as soon as praticable, I recognise that such enlargement of the EC may bring with it complications which will further affect the framing of any common foreign or defence policy. It is therefore extremely important that we should be working hand in glove with these nations to try and create a Europe to transcend the divisions of the past. Therefore I hope that the various countries of Central Europe will also build on their association with the Community as they move towards full membership. Membership of the Community implies the possibility of membership (or at least observer status) within the WEU, as is occurring now with the full membership of Greece and with observer status for Denmark and Ireland. For the Central Europeans (and I make no distinctions between countries and avoid imposing any order for accession) I believe that it is essential that the "order of business" should be: stable democracy (with the Council of Europe as the arbiter), economic progress (membership of the EC) and, if desired, mutual security in the shape of WEU membership. I do not believe that membership of NATO should be the final step in that process - that is something which has to be addressed in a different way and perhaps in an entirely different time-frame. The countries of Central Europe are linked with NATO in the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, the NACC. Set up originally to bring NATO and the former Warsaw Pact members together, the NACC then served a particular purpose but it may be in danger now of merely accentuating the frustrations of the Central European states which have come to expect more from the NACC than the NACC is capable of providing. By omitting some of the European states (such as the former neutrals and non-aligned) which are now crucial to an expanding Europe, the NACC is incomplete. But by including such states, the NACC becomes nearly identical with the CSCE. Hence the need, to my mind, to bring the NACC and the CSCE much closer together, even to the extent of considering a merger. The main drawback of such an arrangement lies in the comparative unwieldiness of the CSCE, with more states now members than were present when the UN Charter was originally established. Hence the need to examine alternative arrangements and it occurs to me that Mr. Balladur's recent proposals should be properly examined to see whether they might not fit the bill. It may be that, with some modification, particularly to involve Russia more fully, the proposals could form the basis of a European collective security system. In general one might assert that Russia should be present when the USA is present and vice versa. The forthcoming NATO summit in Brussels in January will be the next hurdle in the process of transformation necessary now for the Alliance to maintain credibility within the "new world order". If the question of enlargement is to remain on the agenda then I believe the emphasis should be on extending the obligation to consult under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty to the NACC partners rather than on extending guarantees under Article 5. Whatever formula is used it is absolutely essential to include Russia in any arrangements made. With regard to the NATO Summit in general I have asked the WEU Permanent Council to examine a positive contribution by the WEU which should be agreed by WEU Ministers at their meeting in Luxembourg on 22nd November. The Assembly for its part will be making a number of recommendations at the forthcoming Plenary Session scheduled for the week beginning 29th November, in Paris; for example, we should certainly like to see NATO agree proper recognition for WEU as a worthy partner in the transatlantic relationship. While WEU's link with European Union cannot really be defined until after formal ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, the link with NATO is very much the first success of the move of the Secretariat and Permanent Council from London to Brussels. The working relationship is firmly established and augurs well for the future. We obviously hope that in the years to come we may say the same about WEU's other vocation: as an "integral part of the development of the European Union". ------- For information, please contact: Yves ROBINS, Press Counsellor _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ | ASSEMBLY OF WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ | 43, avenue du President Wilson _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ | F-75775 Paris cedex 16 France _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ | Tel 331-47235432; Fax 331-47204543 _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ | E-mail: 100315.240@Compuserve.com